The Lounge
I don't think that Russell had counterfactuals in mind. And, anyway, people who propose counterfactuals are not pretending anything, any more than people who make <i>reductio ad absurdum</i> arguments are pretending they don't know something. In the case of the <i>reductio</i> they are supposing that something is not true in order to show that it is true. Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities. Like, nothing is coloured, or there are no sounds in uninhabited forests, or they don't know they have two ears. You know the sort of thing.G'boy wrote:Britishk gf, to answer your email.... "Artificial stupidity" would then be another name for counterfactuals, which are of primary importance to rational thought. If you want to know how known facts support (or not) this or that proposition, you have to first pretend that you don't know those facts, in order that you can see the difference that they make. SNAPSNAP!
I carnt think of any that do, mate.. Philosophers are not particularly interested in what other philosophers can persuade themselves to believe, they are interested in the arguments. Claims about personal beliefs are largely peripheral and seldom made.Britishk wrote: Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities.
The practice of hyperbolic doubt is not in fact an attempt to affect one's <i>beliefs</i> at all. It is an examination of the structure of justification behind the "doubted" assertions (and usually an attempt to provide such a structure). And as G'boy suggested, this process of thought is well framed in terms of counterfactuals: "What if X <i>wasn't</i> true? What difference would there be for our experience?"
I'm afraid that your usually excellent posts are sometimes let down (as I see it) by an extremely uncharitable reading of Berkeley and idealism in general. Berkeley was not inclined to doubt the existence of tables and chairs but sought to underpin our natural faith in their existence with philosophical justification. Blaming Berkeley for asking us to believe ridiculous things is <i>precisely contrary</i> to his meaning, whether you agree with his arguments or not, and does an intelligent thinker a great disservice..
As to Peirce telling us we "should" not doubt various things, what does he mean?? Does he mean we should not examine the epistemic underpinnings of common belief?? Why not?? Is he telling us what we should and shouldn't believe?? On what basis does he direct us?? Do we even have voluntary control over our beliefs such that we may listen to Peirce and decide, on his advice, not to doubt X, Y or Z??
I think it very important to distinguish between a set of beliefs, which will be determined by pragmatic and irrational factors aswell as rational arguments, and the philosophical justifications possible for them..
An example is Hume's discovery and examination of induction. He found he could find no "rational" (i.e. deductive) justification for induced conclusions but also that he could not help believing them in any case. At no point did he suggest we "should" not believe them..
Adri gf!! Go gf! Go gf! -
EniramNocer
- Posts: 17
- Joined: May 7th, '08, 02:25
- Location: Beaufort, SC USA
- Contact:
You better believe it. A lot of rich white chicks and thick dark skinned ones.slowmoe wrote:are there hot chicks where you at.....
The only problem you will find with the white ones is that their rich parents might be racist. Last 3 white girls I dated there parents didn't like it that their daughter was dating a Mexican.
*shrugs* Oh well. Plenty of fish in the sea, that's fo sho!
what the... you guyz fooled me all this time??!!!slowmoe wrote:@zyrene.....i've been friends with gboy and halfass and her buddies for hella long.... were just messing around in the beginning..... used to live in eastcoast...now in westcoast for school.....so are you arranged marriage or not.....
nope i'm not arranged marriage.. that was just part of the bet... heh....ya know exactly what i'm sayin.....thinking i'm not good enough for ya....playing with my emotions...damn little rich brat..... i bet you wear nothing but the finest....wine and dine the best....i'm not some white trailer trash you think i am....i told the world i love you and you dont love me back....whatsup with that.....just tell me straight up adri....
no....i'm not done with you.....i bet you wear expensive perfume....two hundred dollars an ounce and up....you bathe in milk and honey and go to the salon once a week to get your hair done and your nails and toes tended to....rich brat..........and dont think your any smarter than i am cause your not.....damn rich brat.....this whitey aint taking your **** no more.....peace out.......
slowmoe wrote:heh....ya know exactly what i'm sayin.....thinking i'm not good enough for ya....playing with my emotions...damn little rich brat..... i bet you wear nothing but the finest....wine and dine the best....i'm not some white trailer trash you think i am....i told the world i love you and you dont love me back....whatsup with that.....just tell me straight up adri....
gud luck dude....It seems to me that although Berkeley certainly gave lip service to the existence of physical objects like chairs, and asserted that he believed that they existed (but denied that they were <i>material</i> objects) it is not hard to see that he denies what is ordinarily believed these objects are in such a way as to deny that <i>they</i> exist as we ordinarily understand them to exist, whatever else he affirms do exist. For what he says <i>about</i> them implies that they are not located in external space independently from the subject (I would ordinarily say here "observer" but, again, Berkeley does not think we observe objects. And what he says about them implies that they do not persist independently of the subject. (I am, of course talking of Berkeley without the connivance of God). So his picture of the universe, although it does fit in with what we ordinarily say and think, is really very different from what we ordinarily say and think. Just because Berkeley is so clever and subtle, it is difficult to put this point, but what is true is that what he says is right, but what he <i>means</i> is wrong (and I mean by "wrong" inconsistent with the ordinary picture of the world). Tolstoy got what he meant, although in a somewhat skewed way.Jscorpio wrote:I carnt think of any that do, mate.. Philosophers are not particularly interested in what other philosophers can persuade themselves to believe, they are interested in the arguments. Claims about personal beliefs are largely peripheral and seldom made.Britishk wrote: Philosophers who practice "artificial stupidity" claim, at least, to believe absurdities.
The practice of hyperbolic doubt is not in fact an attempt to affect one's <i>beliefs</i> at all. It is an examination of the structure of justification behind the "doubted" assertions (and usually an attempt to provide such a structure). And as G'boy suggested, this process of thought is well framed in terms of counterfactuals: "What if X <i>wasn't</i> true? What difference would there be for our experience?"
I'm afraid that your usually excellent posts are sometimes let down (as I see it) by an extremely uncharitable reading of Berkeley and idealism in general. Berkeley was not inclined to doubt the existence of tables and chairs but sought to underpin our natural faith in their existence with philosophical justification. Blaming Berkeley for asking us to believe ridiculous things is <i>precisely contrary</i> to his meaning, whether you agree with his arguments or not, and does an intelligent thinker a great disservice..
As to Peirce telling us we "should" not doubt various things, what does he mean?? Does he mean we should not examine the epistemic underpinnings of common belief?? Why not?? Is he telling us what we should and shouldn't believe?? On what basis does he direct us?? Do we even have voluntary control over our beliefs such that we may listen to Peirce and decide, on his advice, not to doubt X, Y or Z??
I think it very important to distinguish between a set of beliefs, which will be determined by pragmatic and irrational factors aswell as rational arguments, and the philosophical justifications possible for them..
An example is Hume's discovery and examination of induction. He found he could find no "rational" (i.e. deductive) justification for induced conclusions but also that he could not help believing them in any case. At no point did he suggest we "should" not believe them..
But anyway, going back to what Russell said, we need not mine Berkeley for examples of what Russell was talking about. Philosophers have told us, for example, that we cannot <i>know</i> that there are tables and chairs. (It is to the credit of Berkeley that he believed that his philosophy would falsify that kind of skepticism, so in this, Berkeley is on my side) But if there is anything we do know, it is that there are tables and chairs. And, so on.
I agree with you about Hume. But he also said, that for all we know, the sun will not rise tomorrow, and, again, if there is anything we know, it is that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Hyperbolic doubt is doubt, nonetheless. And Descartes called it "hyperbolic" partly because he argued that it was justified to doubt things we ordinarily consider to be indubitable. Descartes justification for that was that it was barely possible that we are mistaken about what he recommends we doubt. That is not an adequate justification for doubting.
Bless the lord, here we go again. I mean really moe bf, when did you ever care? If you were, you wouldn't have acted so stupidly on the internet anyway. Bf, we don't have time for your drama in you addictspace. But since we do "care" about you, I guess this is what we have to put up with. Seriously, you're in college now, grow up and act like an adult for crying out loud! Geez, I need a bootyfacial after this **** is done. Arrgh.....slowmoe wrote:could careless bro....
When did your lovely parents (bless their hearts) teach you to disrespect women and calling them bitches? Yes, there are some have earned that label *cough* *cough*, but I'm talking about Adri right now. I mean really bf, this is the one time I wish I could go back in time and give your mother some contraceptives! If you are a real man, please go back up to your post and think before you speak.shes a ****
Oh no bf, think again. With your childish ways, Adri deserves better!....shes the one missing out not me
Cry me the river, bf! When? This one-way lovin' is getting old. So you say "you love her and she doesn't love you back". Romeo and Juliet? NOT! Moshi Moshi, chemistry hello? I mean really bf, you can't force love on others, and I can go on and on on this, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.....playing with my emotionals....
Last I checked, two or three nights ago, you loved her. Or was this just another one of your PMS aka Pre-man syndrome? Wishy washy I cannot makeup my mind, I love you, I love you not kinda thingy? Arrrgh!!!!!!hate her.....
Bf, we've been friends for so many years and we love you for who you are. Self pity is shitty. Ok bf? And please please try not to say anything you might later regret it. Anyways bf, I got everyone's ticket and yours, too. I'm so excited about our trip I cannot wait. LOL!!!
Because, she's a crazy fangirl, what else is new from her?Slowmoe wrote:dont know why adri likes it.....
I mean really bf, the show is soooo damn cliche, I don't know what else to call it. Ok, you take this submissive heterogirl who keeps going back to her psycho bf for some more **** slapping , *Boring*. A babydyke on bike in love with her bestfriend, what is new? Boring*. And a closet wannabe gay hairstylist sweet and kind, mixed them together what else is new to happen? *Boring*nothing new about the characters and almost halfway done with this serie
The show is sooooo predictable, I call it Cliche, Cliche and more Cliche! Even I can come up with a better script than that! But I must admit, the show's good at promoting their products. For example, the cups have more airplay than the Erigirl in the show. Of course, silly fangirl Adri will argue with me on that one. But I mean really bf, think about it, there isn't anything deep secret hidden in them, all they want is for these crazy fangirls like Adri to go out and purchase them after the show's over. LOLLOL&LOL!
Bf, if you wanna watch good series, go see The Drive of Life, or Heart of Greed. There are more good series out there.
I would say my all time favourite is chow yun fat for his great acting. This guy can act, bf! Most recently....* thinking*.... is Raymond Lam. He is such a cutie but still can't top Louis Koo! I love love and love him with Jessica Hester. They were such a cute couple and I had never missed any series with them together. LOL!!!
For female actors, it has to be Ada Choi, Charmaine Sheh and a few others I can't think of their names right now. But I mean really bf, no wannabe actors for me, this new generation of JE boys, Chinese idols (whatever you wanna call it) with the looks but can't act has to go. To be fair, there are a few good Japanese/Korean series/movies out there deserve the credits. Anyways as for Aaron K, goodlord bf, this guy is gayer than me! I'm just waiting on him to migrate to Canada and announce his gayness. Have you seen him in concert? I mean really bf, this boy was wearing daisy dukes!
For female actors, it has to be Ada Choi, Charmaine Sheh and a few others I can't think of their names right now. But I mean really bf, no wannabe actors for me, this new generation of JE boys, Chinese idols (whatever you wanna call it) with the looks but can't act has to go. To be fair, there are a few good Japanese/Korean series/movies out there deserve the credits. Anyways as for Aaron K, goodlord bf, this guy is gayer than me! I'm just waiting on him to migrate to Canada and announce his gayness. Have you seen him in concert? I mean really bf, this boy was wearing daisy dukes!
I humbly disagree. Berkeley explicitly supports the beliefs of the common man. Yes, he does disagree with assertions about <i>material substance</i>, but he is not disagreeing with any everyday claims about stubbing toes on rocks or things being present when we look away. The ideas of material substance he is attacking are the abstruse metaphysical claims of contemporary philosophers which are very far from common.Britishk wrote:It seems to me that although Berkeley certainly gave lip service to the existence of physical objects like chairs, and asserted that he believed that they existed (but denied that they were <i>material</i> objects) it is not hard to see that he denies what is ordinarily believed these objects are in such a way as to deny that <i>they</i> exist as we ordinarily understand them to exist, whatever else he affirms do exist.
If by "material" you simply mean that things persist when you look away and that you will stub your toe if you kick a rock, then Berkeley is just fine with things being material.
As I have said, you do a good thinker a disservice if you equivocate between the idea of material substance Berkeley was criticising and an everyday sense of the word material, with all its connotations of persistence and solidity.
Berkeley was certainly not (as well you must know) positing a world of ghostly ephemeral objects that could be glimpsed disappearing behind Tolstoy's shoulder.
They certainly do (in Berkeley's conception of the world) persist entirely independently of all of us. Of course he suggests God as the sort of universal Mind in which all objects exist, but that position is virtually indistinguishable from pantheism.For what he says <i>about</i> them implies that they are not located in external space independently from the subject (I would ordinarily say here "observer" but, again, Berkeley does not think we observe objects. And what he says about them implies that they do not persist independently of the subject.
As to "external space" the objects have just the same space ordering and relation as in any materialist conception. What can "external space" mean beyond this? Certainly nothing a physicist would recognise. There is still a manifold of event locations.
So you are talking of Berkeley without half of his argument.(I am, of course talking of Berkeley without the connivance of God).
It is <i>really</i> very different?? How?? I see persistence, independence and spatial ordering. We just have a different label for the nature of everything. (of course, I disagree with Berkeley and this point in particular reveals some of the problems with his position. Assertions about whether **everything** is material or mental or chocolate lack any sense since there can be no frame of reference by which we could understand them.)So his picture of the universe, although it does fit in with what we ordinarily say and think, is really very different from what we ordinarily say and think.
Russell himself practices doubt about tables and chairs in just the way I described earlier (i.e. not <i>actually</i> doubting them, but looking to see if there is any justification for belief in "an external world".) In fact he does not find a satisfactory answer to this question.But anyway, going back to what Russell said, we need not mine Berkeley for examples of what Russell was talking about. Philosophers have told us, for example, that we cannot <i>know</i> that there are tables and chairs. (It is to the credit of Berkeley that he believed that his philosophy would falsify that kind of skepticism, so in this, Berkeley is on my side) But if there is anything we do know, it is that there are tables and chairs. And, so on.
I would entirely agree that when describing the world we can base our considerations upon what we consider to be the firmest foundations, which tend to be the medium sized dry goods of everyday objects. However, that does not stop us examining what we mean by "there is a table" in much more esoteric terms. There may be an ideal table, a material table or whatever.
This process is analogous to the scientific process of theory construction from experiment, where the behaviour of medium sized dry goods (mostly scientific instruments) are relied upon to construct complex abstractions which are in turn brought to bear back onto those everyday objects. So we may start with certainty about a table, or chair, or instrument needle, and conclude that the chair is "in fact" the macroscopic manifestation of a collection of fields ranging over a spacetime manifold of however many dimensions. Whatever esoteric theory we hold about the "nature" of matter, we are still certain it is a chair in the ordinary sense.
Yes, and I agree with that too (although it does slightly equivocate between the sense of knowledge as mathematical certainty and the sense of knowledge as very firmly justified belief).I agree with you about Hume. But he also said, that for all we know, the sun will not rise tomorrow, and, again, if there is anything we know, it is that the sun will rise tomorrow.
I would say that it isn't doubt, if by doubt you mean an actual wavering of belief. It is a philosophical method and does not require any actual change of belief. It is perhaps a misleading term..Hyperbolic doubt is doubt, nonetheless.
I think you are taking the sense of "doubt" here too narrowly and literally, mate..And Descartes called it "hyperbolic" partly because he argued that it was justified to doubt things we ordinarily consider to be indubitable. Descartes justification for that was that it was barely possible that we are mistaken about what he recommends we doubt. That is not an adequate justification for doubting.
It is an entirely adequate justification for doubt if the aim of the exercise is to find mathematical certainty and "doubt" here must be understood in that context..
Because there are some unwritten rules between friends. For me, the two biggest ones are: never use anything friends say against them, and don't date their exes. Let's say if the "ex-girlfriend rule" is ever broken, chances are our friendship will be lost forever, and a physical fight might even break out.. As much as Alicia swears that Halfass doesn't mean anything to her, it still hurts when she realises that her Halfass has found someone new. And if that someone else is me, it just amplifies the pain..
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests